Contentious Motion

[Guest CanMike]

Hello,

In our group, we use RONR as a last resort.

We are part of a bigger body, which had a convention. At the Annual General Meeting previous to that, it was announced there would be no subsidies of delegates to the convention. After the AGM, we formed a new board (as per normal procedure) with some carrying over from the previous board.

The Monday before the weekend Convention, the new board had a meeting. It included a motion for an honourarium to pay for the convention. The motion was narrowly defeated. The Thursday before the weekend convention, a sudden email motion was sent out. People objected to that email motion, but I do not recall bylaws or rules for email motions. Previously, they had been used for issues of much greater magnitude, so the email motion to me was not out of common sense. It narrowly passed, with some 'anonymous' votes, which was odd. This second Thursday motion was announced at 2am, and the deadline was 6pm the same day. Quorum was reached. It passed; instead of an honourarium, it was for 'essential expenses'. 'Essential' was undefined.

I'm the treasurer.

I've been hearing from opponents of the new Thursday motion. I am told by one that this is a contentious issue and requires two (2) weeks' notice. This person asserts it is NOT the re-visiting, but that the issue is contentious.

I can find some evidence under Section 35 that weakly suggests re-visiting should not be allowed in the sense that it is amending something previously adopted.

What I cannot find is the requirement for 2 weeks' notice on a contentious issue. The contentiousness of the issue is in part based on the re-visiting within 48 hours. I have enough evidence that this is a contentious issue. I cannot find anything that links the issue to 2 weeks' notice which would nullify the Thursday vote.

Thanks

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm reminded again of the last sentence in "Portnoy's Complaint."

[Gary c Tesser]

What I mean is, where to start.

1. Unless the bylaws expressly provide for e-mail or other absentee conduct of business, including voting, it is just plain not allowed. Period. So: do yours?

2. There is nothing in Robert's Rules about two-day deadlines, two-weeks' notice, or any special significance of contentious issues. Do your own rules?

3. "It was announced," huh? Who made the announcement, and who had made the decision?

4. Is the board authorized to override the decisions of the convention?

-- 4(a). Assuming that e-mail voting is legitimate, what body made the e-mail decision, and are THEY authorized to override the decisions of the convention, or of the board?

(I myself don't need the answers to these questions: CanMike's organization does.)

[CanMike]

Thank you.

1.Yes emails are in the by-laws.

2.Robert's Rules talk about special meetings with number of days notice required. I do not know of bylaws mentioning 2 weeks or any other time period... perhaps someone in my group is confusing bylaws and Roberts.

3.'It was announced' by the outgoing board to the Annual General Meeting of members that there would be no subsidy/honourarium/expense coverage. This meeting was three months previous to the recent Monday/Thursday meetings mentioned. Some board members stated they would have gone if they had known that there would be partial financial reimbursements. This supports the controversial nature of the situation.

4.The board can override the previous board (AGM announcement) or the current board (Monday announcement). The argument that I'm trying to prove/disprove is that there was insufficient notice on a motion/e-meeting to overturn a motion 48 hours previous. It seems there is no such requirement for notice to be given in RROR.

Thanks

What I mean is, where to start.

1. Unless the bylaws expressly provide for e-mail or other absentee conduct of business, including voting, it is just plain not allowed. Period. So: do yours?

2. There is nothing in Robert's Rules about two-day deadlines, two-weeks' notice, or any special significance of contentious issues. Do your own rules?

3. "It was announced," huh? Who made the announcement, and who had made the decision?

4. Is the board authorized to override the decisions of the convention?

-- 4(a). Assuming that e-mail voting is legitimate, what body made the e-mail decision, and are THEY authorized to override the decisions of the convention, or of the board?

(I myself don't need the answers to these questions: CanMike's organization does.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Whoa. Back to #4:

(And BTW, my thanks to CanMike for staying with those numbers. Helps keeping track.)

4. As an AGM, does it have authority that the board can, or cannot override? As a convention, does it have authority that the board can, or cannot, override?

[CanMike]

Whoa. Back to #4:

(And BTW, my thanks to CanMike for staying with those numbers. Helps keeping track.)

4. As an AGM, does it have authority that the board can, or cannot override? As a convention, does it have authority that the board can, or cannot, override?

At the AGM, the 20-person board informs the 1,000-strong membership body of what has gone on in the past year. The membership may move motions, but normally do not. They do vote on the reports (financial, president's etc).

So, the AGM announcement to the membership body was a decision by the old board. Obviously, the new board revisited the issue later on in time. I don't think the AGM announcement is terribly important to the new motion, but the fact that some delegates who did not go to the Convention due to lack of subsidy means it is equitable to have kept the decision announced at the AGM.

5)What about this? Online it says:

New provisions relating to the notice and call of meetings have been added and a precise rule for the counting of days of notice required has been provided. http://www.robertsrules.com/changes.html

where are these provisions? It seems that local bylaws have to be made. Some in our group stipulate our rules are 2 weeks notice on contentious motions, but they are citing RR

Thank you. Mike

[Shmuel Gerber]

Hello,

In our group, we use RONR as a last resort.

5)What about this? Online it says:

New provisions relating to the notice and call of meetings have been added and a precise rule for the counting of days of notice required has been provided. http://www.robertsru...om/changes.html

where are these provisions? It seems that local bylaws have to be made. Some in our group stipulate our rules are 2 weeks notice on contentious motions, but they are citing RR

Thank you. Mike

Those are your problems right there. ( A ) You ought to be using RONR all the time, not merely as a last resort; and ( B ) It's not clear that you actually have a copy of RONR (otherwise, you could look up "special meeting" in the index).

But anyway, you're correct that any notice provisions would have to be in the bylaws; RONR simply clarifies under what conditions a call to a meeting should be issued and how the number of days is calculated.

[CanMike]

Those are your problems right there. ( A ) You ought to be using RONR all the time, not merely as a last resort; and ( B ) It's not clear that you actually have a copy of RONR (otherwise, you could look up "special meeting" in the index).

But anyway, you're correct that any notice provisions would have to be in the bylaws; RONR simply clarifies under what conditions a call to a meeting should be issued and how the number of days is calculated.

Thank you gents. I do have a copy of Robert's Rules 10th from the library. There was a difference between my expectations (2 weeks) and actual (bylaws).

Now, I think it is common sense for a special meeting/motion to require advance notice.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/roberts-rules-for-giving-notice-of-a-meeting.html

Sorry to bring the 'dummies' book into play here, but it says 'Special meetings always require advance notice'. This email vote was a special motion constituting a special meeting.

So, here's where I'm at: The advance notice for a special meeting (motion) is commonsense, and a 'dummies' book stipulates that. I turn to RONR, and it (paraphrasing) says 'advance notice required for special meetings. Check your bylaws.' Since we do not have such a bylaw that would demand # of days, I would say the advance notice is not possible. Therefore, the contentious motion stands.

Mike

[David A Foulkes]

Since we do not have such a bylaw that would demand # of days, I would say the advance notice is not possible. Therefore, the contentious motion stands.

Well, RONR says the notice must be mailed a reasonable number of days in advance. What is reasonable is open to interpretation, which would include how long it would take for the mail to arrive, and then how many days would be reasonable needed to make arrangements to attend the meeting.

If your membership all lives in town, this might amount to 3-5 days. If membership is spread over several states, requiring members to arrange travel and accommodations, and possibly leave time from work, then 2 weeks might be more reasonable. It's up to your organization to determine.

[Tim Wynn]

In our group, we use RONR as a last resort.

I've found the problem.

Similarly, I breathe as a last resort... but I find myself doing it regularly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We use RONR as a last resort.

"Send lawyers, guns, and money."

-- Warren Zevon, 1978 (album, "Excitable Boy")

[Gary Novosielski]

Some in our group stipulate our rules are 2 weeks notice on contentious motions, but they are citing RR

No they're not. They're claiming that something is in there, without providing a citation at all. If they "cited" RONR, you could simply open to the page they cited and read it.

(You will have a long wait. There is nothing in there about "contentious" motions requiring two weeks notice.)

[Josh Martin]

At the AGM, the 20-person board informs the 1,000-strong membership body of what has gone on in the past year. The membership may move motions, but normally do not. They do vote on the reports (financial, president's etc).

So, the AGM announcement to the membership body was a decision by the old board. Obviously, the new board revisited the issue later on in time. I don't think the AGM announcement is terribly important to the new motion, but the fact that some delegates who did not go to the Convention due to lack of subsidy means it is equitable to have kept the decision announced at the AGM.

The motion by the board may be amended or rescinded by the board or by the general membership. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. You say that your Bylaws permit voting by e-mail. You'll have to check for yourself to determine if those rules were followed. If they were, the validity of the motion at this point depends on whether the motion was made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. If it was, the motion is valid. If it was not, the motion is null and void unless it can be proven that the motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion.

There is no rule in RONR which requires that "contentious" motions require previous notice. Additionally, previous notice is not required to amend or rescind a previously adopted motion, but it lowers the threshold required for adoption. Previous notice may be provided by including notice in the call of the meeting or by making an announcement at the previous meeting if the next meeting is within a quarterly interval. You will have to interpret how the rules regarding previous notice interact with your e-mail voting rules.